1 23/01/15

The UK and the ‘European Higher Education Space’

Prof. Paul Trowler, Lancaster University, UK.

Draft. Later published in Italian as Trowler, P. (2003) Il Regno Unito e lo 'Spazio Europeo

dell'istruzione' (The UK and the European Higher Education Space). La Rassegna Italiana di

Sociologia. (The Italian Journal of Sociology), 3, 357-370.

Abstract

This paper begins by showing that there are considerable levels of ignorance and complacency

in the UK with regard to the Bologna process. It goes on to illustrate how the characteristics of

the UK higher education system are likely to increase the likelihood of a large 'implementation

gap' between Bologna policy-makers' expectations and outcomes on the ground. Both policy

sociology theory and examples of previous policy trajectories are used to substantiate that

argument. Finally it is suggested that the Bologna process itself is less 'joined up' than at first

might be thought to be the case and that this too is likely to result in unexpected outcomes across

the European 'higher education space'.

Introduction

In his short but perceptive analysis of the Sorbonne, Bologna and Prague accords (2002)

Ladislav Cerych (2002) says the following:

We don’t believe that the follow-up proposals of the Prague Communiqué are adequate.

They surely imply the continuation of a rather confused situation in which the

responsibilities of the different actors are not clearly defined and, especially, where the role

of the European Commission is not ascertained, although as everybody knows, it remains

the financial source of the Bologna-Prague process. This process implies many important

innovations (even in respect to past and existing EU policies) but somebody has to take

care of them. (pp125-6)

It is perhaps not surprising that no implementation mechanisms have been put in place: the

Bologna process (as I will henceforth call the topic of this paper) is a voluntary one designed

precisely to forestall EU ministerial or legislative intervention in this area and so to maintain

respect for diversity within a voluntaristic framework.

Given this vacuum in the Bologna process' implementation mechanisms it is largely left to

governments and higher education institutions (HEIs) to ‘take care’ of putting the accords into

practice. I will show below that the UK higher education system does not operate in a way which

makes that implementation likely, if "implementation" is understood as the unalloyed realisation

of policy-makers’ visions. Rather a very limited, partial and ‘defracted’ (Lingard and Garrick,

1997) implementation is the most likely outcome, at least while this implementation strategy

vacuum persists. Such an outcome is particularly significant for a policy designed to harmonise

2 23/01/15

structures and processes across national boundaries. I will show why this is the case by

discussing the UK HE policy system at both the national and institutional levels. The paper will

draw upon a number of informal conversations I have had with UK policy-makers centrally

involved with the European HE process.

To begin, however, I will make a few comments about the UK perspective on and location

within the Bologna process. These are categorised under the three headings of: ignorance;

conceptual differences; discourse.

Ignorance

It is notable how little the Bologna process is known about, understood or discussed by

academics and others at all levels in the HE system in the UK. Any Irish academic, for example,

will be familiar with the nature and significance of the process for their system. Remarkably few

UK academics have even heard of it. Many senior managers in HEIs have yet to develop a sharp

understanding of what Bologna might mean for them. The UK government and many of the

organizations working with HEIs in the UK similarly appear to be myopic when they look

Eastward to Europe yet extremely clear-sighted when they look at HE systems in the West or

South. The recent (pre-legislative) UK Government White Paper The Future of Higher

Education (January 2003) makes absolutely no mention of the Bologna accord. Of the three

references to Europe in that White Paper two refer to research funds and one to European

students coming to Britain. In most EU countries there could be no discussion of the future of

HE without mentioning the European process and its 'higher education space'. Yet in the UK

higher education scene Europe in general appears to be invisible.

Meanwhile the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN), a network of 24 university-

based subject centres and one generic centre aimed at enhancing teaching and learning across the

UK higher education curriculum has as its seventh and last aim:

To provide an international outlook on learning and teaching matters in terms of importing

('observatory') and exporting ('beacon') learning and teaching resources, materials, trends

and ideas. (<http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/index.asp?docid=152>, accessed 12.2.03)

Yet a search of LTSN websites revealed at best only brief summaries of the Bologna process and

or links to related websites. Only one subject centre contained information analysing the

implications of the accords for their discipline. This discussion begins:

The EU Bologna Declaration is a document well known on the continent, but hardly ever

discussed -- and often unheard of -- in the UK. Our continental colleagues are seriously

concerned by it, so perhaps we should be too.

(http://www.english.ltsn.ac.uk/resources/general/publications/newsletters/newsissue3/caie.

htm, accessed 8.1.03)

Another states:

In the UK there is little awareness of the Bologna Process, the Single Higher Education

Area and the European Research Area.

3 23/01/15

(http://www.lang.ltsn.ac.uk/events/marketinglangsreport.htm accessed 8.1.03)

Another notes, incorrectly, that the proposed British 2 year foundation degree transgresses the

Bologna declaration and so is likely to be declared illegal in the future while another reports that

UK practice is mostly in accord with the declaration and it is European higher education that will

need to move to come into line with our practice.

Conceptual Differences

This last point is significant: one of the often-cited reasons for British ignorance of the Bologna

process is that 'it doesn't matter to them': that the model of HE set out in the accords is essentially

the UK model and UK need do nothing other than wait for Europe to come to them. At Sorbonne

in the late 1990s there was perhaps some justification for complacency in the UK. There were

only 6 objectives to the process at that time and the UK met each of them. Even today it remains

true that, for example, the Dublin descriptors on quality sit comfortably within the current UK

quality regime. Where it is possible to have an informed discussion of the Bologna process in the

UK the talk focuses mainly on the two-cycle qualification structure, which again is modelled on

the UK’s. While this aspect is only a part of the Bologna process it appears to be the residue left

in most British minds after thinking or hearing about the process, and it is one which tends to

reaffirm a complacent attitude.

There are four very good reasons, however, why the UK should not be complacent. The first is

that aspects of the Bologna process do in fact involve differences from some UK HE structures

and processes, at least as articulated in some parts of the UK system. A second is that the

Bologna process, described by one informant as 'a giant wheel with numerous spokes rolling

forth' may in the future roll in directions which go further beyond current UK practices. It is a

wheel which is gathering speed and adding new spokes at a surprising rate.

Third is the fact that at the moment there is a fudging of purposes in order to secure agreement;

on the Dublin descriptors for example. All signatories are agreed on the need to "tune"

disciplinary benchmarks across Europe: there is little disagreement about the principle. Yet

underneath the apparent smooth surface of consensus run currents of different purposes. For

some the Dublin descriptors represent a way of making judgements on standards, a kind of

template, whereas for others the purpose is much a much tougher one: the descriptors as a

standard to meet for accreditation purposes. Indeed any move to translate principles (about which

there is broad agreement) into workable practice is likely to result in debate and even argument

as warm ideals, or even raw self-interest, metamorphose into the detail of practice. The UK

cannot afford to be ignorant of such policy developments or to remain outside the policy loop for

long.

Lastly, however, and potentially of even greater significance than the above are the conceptual

and differences between the UK and many European countries. These, as well as structural and

processual ones, are likely to cause difficulties in the future for the success of the Bologna

process.

Let me illustrate the point with one example. In many European countries higher education

4 23/01/15

quality and standards tend to be considered in terms of input: learning hours, number of pages,

years of study. In the UK by contrast there has long been a shift to thinking about outputs rather

than inputs in the direction of concentration on learning outcomes. Thus the Quality Assurance

Agency (QAA) focuses on the aims and objectives that a Department has for the students on its

programmes, on individual modules and within individual teaching sessions. The key questions

are: what are the objectives this department has for its students and do they (by and large)

achieve them?

Harmonisation of HE systems and the enhancement of student mobility needs a simply-

understood and easily-managed process by which to operate. On those criteria the European

input-based system looks a better candidate than the more rigorous but complex UK approach. If

the Bologna process required the UK to shift in the direction of inputs rather than outputs in the

interests of creating a workable system of mobility then the consequences for UK HE and its

quality assurance and enhancement processes could be significant.

Discourse

Linked to conceptual differences is the issue of discourse. The discursive repertoires in use and

the connotative codes associated with them are very different across the countries of the EU.

This is not a simple issue of language differences or differing levels of abilities in the lingua

franca, English. The point is a more subtle one. Again, let me illustrate with an example. The

word 'competence' tends nowadays to be avoided in discussions about the HE curriculum in the

UK. This is because of a history of political and ideological debate centring on the word which

goes back at least to 1986 and the setting up of the National Council for Vocational

Qualifications (NCVQ) which took up an aggressively behaviourist competence-based approach

to post-compulsory education. In many European countries, however, the discourse of

competence lacks such affective and conceptual overtones and is used in a way which, to UK

ears, may evoke concerns and fears rooted in the debates I have alluded to. Such differences are

likely to cause both misunderstanding and concerns among both policy-makers and those

charged with implementing change.

In the next section I turn to consider the problems of implementation of the Bologna process in

the UK with which I began this paper.

The UK HE policy regime and the Bologna Process

Higher education policy regimes at the national level involve dynamic networks of actors

involved in forms of relationships which change over time (Bleiklie, 2002). The policy process

in which they are engaged is driven not only by goal-oriented rational action (what I have termed

elsewhere the rational-purposive policy model - Trowler, 2002), but by rule-oriented

institutionalised behaviour and culturally-derived norms, values and attitudes.

Policy regimes may be conceptualised in terms of a number of significant dimensions: which

groups are involved; what the links are between them; how power is distributed and flows among

them. A particular policy regime may comprise a different constellation of actors and groupings

over time, especially as policy issues change. How these relate to each other will change, as will

5 23/01/15

the extent to which they have power over the policy process over the long, medium or short term.

For example, Kogan and Hanney (2000) note that in the UK until the late 1960s civil servants

and vice chancellors (university heads) were the most significant actors in the policy process.

They shared a common background and university education and were frequently members of

the same London club, the Athenaeum. They engaged in policy formulation in a purposive way,

but were influenced in this by sets of values and background assumptions which were,

presumably, largely invisible to them because taken for granted.

By contrast politicians at that time adopted a ‘hands-off’ approach to higher education policy

making. Most notably they left funding issues to a non-governmental organization, the

University Grants Committee which was dominated by academics. Funds were allocated on a

quinquennial basis with few restrictions in terms of what they could be spent on. Students,

employers and other potential ‘stakeholders’ had little-to-no formal involvement in the policy

process, nor did they significantly affect policy through pressure group politics.

At that time, then, a rather limited number of actors and groupings had considerable power over

the policy process. They shared a common culture, had similar sets of values and attitudes and

common goals. Higher education policy in the UK was, as a result, more consistent and stable

than is the case nowadays because of the tight policy community involved.

In the UK today the situation is quite different, having shifted from that ‘policy community’

model towards an ‘issue network’ one (Rhodes and Marsh, 1992; Bleiklie, 2002). An issue

network is characterised by:

…a large and/or wide range of affected interests; fluctuations in contacts, access and level

of agreement; unequal resource distribution combined with varying abilitites to deliver

members’ support; and unequal powers among the group’s members. (Bleiklie, 2002: 33)

Government ministers, departments, agencies and quangos (quasi-autonomous non-

governmental bodies) have now taken to themselves a far greater degree of power over the

higher education policy process than was once the case, and they use it:

The creation of the Department of Education and Science and the transfer of responsibility

from the Treasury in 1964 marked the end of the hands-off approach to university finance.

The era of pushing a cheque through the letter-box and walking away was over.

Governments and their funding agencies wanted increasingly first to knock on the door,

then to peek inside, then to observe what they saw, then to ask questions, then to suggest

changes and then to change the size of their cheques if the changes did not occur. (Wagner,

1995: 16).

Yet power is exercised by government agencies in the context of a large and complex issue

network (see, e.g. Salter and Tapper, 1994; Kogan and Hanney, 2000). While institutional

leaders such as vice-chancellors have lost their privileged place within the policy community

they still retain a considerable degree of autonomy, especially those from the more elite

universities. Meanwhile a range of what Bleiklie calls ‘co-opted elites’ - individuals and groups

invited or appointed to positions of power - have become significant, though perhaps more in

6 23/01/15

terms of policy implementation than formulation. This includes those involved with the QAA's

work in setting subject benchmark standards, in institutional review and subject review as well as

those making decisions in the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE)

research assessment exercise. Co-opted elites in many other organizations also play a part in the

policy process as appropriate to their remit: in the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher

Education (ILT); the Higher Education Staff Development Agency (HESDA); Universities UK

(the organization of university leaders), and so on. The picture is further complicated by an

imminent reorganisation of these elite agencies following the Future of Higher Education White

Paper, mentioned above.

Some groups though have been progressively excluded from the policy-making process,

particularly lecturers’ representatives. There has too been a decline in trust in those involved in

‘producing’ higher education as new managerialist thinking filtering through the system under

the Thatcher and now Blair administrations has placed greater emphasis on market forces,

accountability and performance assessment. Even the neo-liberal critique of ‘producer capture’

in the public sector remains extant in New Labour government thinking.

While these groups have declined in influence general environmental factors have become more

important in higher education policy and pressure group processes in recent years, partly because

of the heritage of neo-liberalism since 1980:

Much of the rhetoric about higher education policy is based on the notion that higher

education systems are shaped by political decisions and preferences…A number of events

and processes, such as educational choices made by young people, the dynamics of the

academic labour markets and academic prestige hierarchies, have exerted equally important

influences on higher education. (Kogan et al, 2000: 29).

Such a sophisticated issue network policy regime makes the higher education policy process in

the UK extremely complex and the environment in which it occurs remarkably turbulent. The

state has taken to itself powers over universities which it previously eschewed, but usually

through third parties. Thus the QAA has become involved in curricular design through the

development of benchmark statements for different curricular areas. These set out the

requirements for curricular content in the subjects and adherence to their design is audited

through the QAA’s quality assurance procedures. Meanwhile the QAA’s Code of Practice for the

assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education comprises a suite of inter-

related documents for the guidance of higher education institutions in areas such as assessment,

equal opportunities and many other areas.

These mechanisms in theory provide the route through which the harmonisation of curricular

design envisaged in the European accords might be realised. Yet the reality is that the process of

devising these instruments, and their application on the ground, is an intensely political process

even within the national context. Thus the subject benchmark statements were arrived at by

working parties largely composed of academics. Each subject took a different approach to its

work; some more prescriptive, many less so, and each taking a unique approach to the content of

the benchmarks - as was predictable because of the different character of the disciplines, the

7 23/01/15

narratives about them and the academic cultures which are associated with them (Becher and

Trowler, 2001). There is as a result limited uniformity across disciplines and across institutions

even within the UK. To expect harmonisation at a European level would seem at the very least to

be unrealistic.

Institutional characteristics: UK universities and the Bologna Process

If the policy context at the national level in The UK is complex, the situation is exacerbated by

the very different character of the institutions which comprise the higher education ‘system’

there. They differ remarkably in size, composition, curriculum and culture

Such differences mean that the ‘same’ policy will be received and implemented very differently

different institutions according to local context. This is illustrated by the following case study

from the Scottish context by Morgan-Klein and Murphy (2002). These authors draw on data

from a five-country study of widening participation policy and focus in detail on institutional

responses to the widening participation agenda in Scotland. They use data from senior managers

and others in key positions in universities and further education colleges to show how very

different the institutional responses were to that agenda, and where the causes of this diversity

lay. In particular Morgan-Klein and Murphy note that the widening participation policy was

being implemented in a context of a declining demand for post-compulsory education generally

following the imposition of fees on students by the government. This affected institutional

responses to a considerable degree. The more established institutions which had no problem

filling student places took only limited, and fairly traditional, measures to broaden access to

previously excluded groups, and hence only marginally participated in the widening participation

thrust. Meanwhile younger institutions with less established reputations fought hard to fill places

and so were more willing to help widen participation if it meant increased student recruitment.

They were, however, less effective in widening participation than in deepening it - in recruiting

more of the same sorts of students rather than recruiting students from backgrounds previously

excluded from higher education. It was simply easier and cheaper to do this, and the primary

motivation was one of survival for the institution rather than that of the policy-makers.

The significant point here, though, is that while policy-makers tend to focus on their policy alone

- in this case the European Higher Education space - each policy is situated in a particular

context and is apprehended locally as part of a ‘policy bundle’, the separate components of

which may be more, or less, ‘joined-up, and in itself only one of many ‘policy bundles’ which

affect any given institution at any one time. Institutions will respond to the Bologna process in

different ways and for different reasons: in the perhaps naive hope of securing funding from the

EU for HE in a less developed country; with the expectation of gaining competitive advantage

over others in the same market for international students and/or research funds; or simply

because of an idealism built on a dream of European federal structure. Morgan-Klein and

Murphy note that the outcomes of their study underline….

"the central role of institutions in widening access and the need to examine critically

institutional practices and policy implementation. Institutional motivation is profoundly

influenced by the structure of higher education including pronounced sectoral differentiation

8 23/01/15

in practice, inter-institutional competition and changes in supply and demand…. Institutional

goals …are diverse and often ambiguous. They are also constrained by external factors

including competition and changes in demand and supply some of which will be difficult to

address even at the level of national policy. Nevertheless understanding institutional

motivations is a crucial first step in designing effective policy…..(Morgan-Klein and Murphy,

2002, p 76).

Looking Inside Universities

The apparent significance of institutional diversity may appear slight to policy-makers gazing at

higher education though the wrong end of an analytical telescope from the Sorbonne, Bologna or

Prague. Yet they ignore its significance at their peril. Moreover, moving below the institutional

analytical level to that of the department of course reveals even more diversity and room for the

development of 'implementation gaps' - differences between policy as envisaged and policy as

realised. Marchese (1999) is right to identify the department as a very significant level of

analysis for the higher education researcher and of personal attachment for those working there.

Social practice theory (Knight and Trowler, 2001) tells us that the social construction of reality

goes on in workgroup contexts in which social engagement with the world occurs. Extended

joint engagement on a project involves the development of recurrent practices and sets of

meaning which are localized, endogenous in character. This involves the development of rules,

including rules of appropriateness, conventions, taken-for-granted understandings, connotative

codes and so on. At the same time particular ways of interacting with the technologies employed

to achieve tasks evolve and become taken for granted. In their teaching practices, for example,

university departments develop ways of thinking about their students, approaches to course

design and implementation, assessment practices and uses of technologies which become

invisible to members of those departments but which can seem odd, novel, exciting or just plain

wrong to others. Elsewhere I have referred to these social realities as ‘teaching and learning

regimes’ (Trowler and Cooper, 2002). Underpinning these practices are values, attitudes and

ideologies that are partly developed and communicated locally, though of course this occurs in

the context of social structures which condition the extent to which there is room for maneouvre.

Meanwhile, as well as developing shared characteristics the process of identity construction and

development is going on at the individual level through interaction processes which occur as

individual participants engage with each other and their work projects. At one and the same time

culturally unique workgrops and the public identities of the participants involved are developing.

Eraut (1993; 2000) believes that most human learning does not occur in formal contexts and

points to the importance of ‘non-formal learning’. He observes that a great deal of information in

education is acquired piecemeal: images and impressions are built up on the basis of comments,

overheard remarks and fleeting incidents rather than only from more systematic and formalized

sources. So, learning, identity construction, affect and meaning necessarily come with the social

practices of committee meetings, staff meetings, informal interactions in corridors or over coffee,

as well as through email messages and memos.

Members of workgoups draw on and enact behaviours, meanings and values from the wider

9 23/01/15

environment in somewhat different ways, partly depending on their age, gender, ethnicity,

professional experience and so on. For example men and women bring their particular

experience of sex-role socialization with them and meet expectations associated with gender

roles from others in their daily practice. This 'sex-role spillover' (Nieva and Gutek, 1981) can

have important implications for the experience and effectiveness of practice (Trowler, 1998). So

too with age, 'race' and other social structural characteristics.

Thus, for example, in my study of a single university’s ‘big bang’ implementation of the credit

framework in the early years of the 1990s (Trowler, 1998) I found that narratives about

disciplinary requirements, different educational ideologies, differing perceptions of ‘profitability’

and cultural differences more generally had important consequences for the ways in which the

credit framework was interpreted and put into practice in different departments. None put it into

practice in the ‘pure’ form envisaged by departmental policy makers - although that ‘vision’ was

itself full of compromises, fudges and occlusions. All had special ‘circumstances’ which meant

that the credit framework took a different form in one location than it did elsewhere - with more

or less restricted choice for students, more or less contact time, greater or lesser use of ‘generic’

modules, more or less opportunity to study outside the department, greater or lesser ‘fit’ between

the modular framework and the student learning experience and so on. In some departments the

interpretation and response to the policy message was homogenous among all departmental

members while elsewhere there was considerable negotiation, even conflict, about how it should

be seen and put into practice.

If institutions in reality are complex configurations of multiple, dynamic workgroup cultures

then we can expect the local reception and implementation of policy from the European Union to

be equally complex and dynamic. There will be no simple rational-purposive model of visions

being put into effect uniformly. Instead local contexts will condition policy outcomes in each

case. And indeed this is an outcome that has already been noted in several other policy areas

(Gewirtz et al, 1995; Woods et al, 1996; Arnot et al, 1996).

Conclusion

We can expect of a response to the Bologna process across Europe which is diverse and

unpredictable, at least in the detail. This may be especially the case in the UK where remarkable

levels of ignorance about and complacency towards the process exist. Policy refraction will

occur at different locations in the policy implementation staircase and at different locales on the

policy terraces. No-one should expect a simple move from ignorance to awareness and then on to

dissemination at the institutional level (Hall and Loucks, 1978). Adaption is far more likely than

adoption at both the level of the workgroup and at the institutional level.

Beyond the general issues of 'implementation' outlined above there are specific features of the

Bologna process which lead me to question whether the outcomes of the process will be as

policy-makers predict and hope. Like that in the UK, European HE policy is not at present

particularly ‘joined up’ and, like the UK government, the EU has no remit or power to legislate

on HE within its jurisdiction or even to directly control universities in member states in other

ways. While the Bologna process aspires to coherence across Europe and an open higher

education space, other European policy strands are seeking to close down movement amidst fears

10 23/01/15

of a shift in population from the less developed to the more developed parts of Europe. Will HE

in Romania and Bulgaria be given equity of treatment to Sweden with regard to research

funding, student mobility and the rest? Will differences in linguistic skills and affluence among

the different European countries mean that there are disparities in reciprocity of student

movement? Will European funding be available to research and development in universities and

so help drive the Bologna process? And will there really be competitive advantage for those who

are quick to exploit the higher education space?

If we look at the Bologna process at the macro level there are reasons for worrying about

potential outcomes. And if we switch our level of analysis and look at higher education close up

we find multiple reasons why these accords may be occluded, ignored, implemented in a

refracted way and reconstructed in different contexts. In the UK, as elsewhere, we can expect

different outcomes in different higher education contexts. Few of them are likely to be as the

European policy-makers or those in Westminster and Whitehall intended or envisaged.

References

Arnot, M., David, M. and Weiner, G. (1996) Educational Reforms and Gender Equality in

Schools. Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission.

Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: intellectual enquiry and the

cultures of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE. Second edition.

Beiklie, I. (2002) Explaining Change in Higher Education Policy. In P. Trowler, (ed) Higher

Education Policy and Institutional Change. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE,

24-46.

Cerych, L. (2002) Sorbonne, Bologna, Prague: Where do we go from here? In J. Enders, and O.

Fulton, (eds. ) Higher Education in a Globalising World. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers, pp 121-126.

Department for Education and Skills (2003) The Future of Higher Education. London: DfES.

Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work, British Journal

of Educational Psychology, 70, 113-136.

Eraut, M. (1993) The Characterisation and Development of Professional Expertise, Educational

Management and Administration, 21(4): 224-232.

Gewirtz, S., Ball, S. and Bowe, R. (1995) Markets, Choice and Equity in Education.

Buckingham: Open University Press.

Hall and Loucks (1978) Teachers concerns as a basis for facilitating and personalising staff

development in Teachers College Record Vol 80 36-53.

Knight, P. and Trowler, P. (2001) Departmental Leadership in Higher Education: new directions

for communities of practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Kogan, M. and Hanney, S. (2000) Reforming Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Kogan, M., Bauer, M., Bleiklie, I., and Henkel, M. (2000) Transforming Higher Education: a

comparative study. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Lingard, B. and Garrick, B. (1997) Producing and Practising Social Justice Policy in Education:

a policy trajectory study from Queensland, Australia. International Studies in Sociology of

Education, 7, 2, 157-180.

Marchese, T. (1999) Foreword, in I. Hecht, M. Higgerson, W. Gmelch and A. Tucker (eds) The

11 23/01/15

Department Chair as Academic Leader. Phoenix: American Council on Education and

Oryx Press, vii-x.

Morgan-Klein and Murphy, M. (2002) Access and Recruitment: institutional policy in widening

participation. In P. Trowler, (ed) Higher Education Policy and Institutional Change.

Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE, 64-79.

Nieva, V. F and Gutek, B. A. (1981) Women and Work: a psychological perspective. New York:

Praeger.

Rhodes, R.A.W. and Marsh, D, (1992) "New Directions in the Study of Policy Networks",

European Journal of Political Research, 21:181-205.

Salter, B. and Tapper, T. (1994) The State and Higher Education. Ilford: The Woburn Press.

Trowler, P. (2002) Introduction: Higher Education Policy, Institutional Change. In P. Trowler

(ed) Higher Education Policy and Institutional Change. Buckingham: Open University

Press/SRHE.

Trowler, P. (1998) Academics Responding to Change: new higher education frameworks and

academic cultures. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.

Trowler, P. and Cooper, A. (2002) Teaching and Learning Regimes: implicit theories and

recurrent practices in the enhancement of teaching and learning through educational

development programmes. Higher Education Research and Development, 21, 3, 221-240.

Wagner, L. (1995) A Thirty Year Perspective: from the sixties to the nineties. In T. Schuller (ed)

The Changing University? Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.

Woods, P., Bagley, C. and Glatter, R. (1996) Dynamics of Competition. In C. Pole and R.

Chawla-Duggan (eds) Reshaping Education in the 1990’s: perspectives on secondary

schooling. London: Falmer Press.

Wright, S. (2002) A Discipline Specific Educational Development Programme for Anthropology

Final Report to FDTL.